4 ms·

Binance.US was supposed to be a separate entity, operating under US regulations and thus allowing people in the US to use it directly. Quoting the article: >O

Binance.US was supposed to be a separate entity, operating under US regulations and thus allowing people in the US to use it directly. Quoting the article: >Our data suggest that Binance.US’s “market maker” is a single pair of addresses that exclusively transfer funds between Binance and Binance.US. These addresses move customer assets from the U.S.-based exchange to the much larger offshore entity to perform trades. This means that for all practical purposes, there is no real difference between having your money with Binance.US or directly with Binance. Given that Binance was barred from doing business in the United States, it certainly appears that Binance.US is little more than a convenient fiction to evade regulators. So yes, Binance.US was created to give the impression of a separate business entity to appease US regulators and entice US investors. But it appears to all be a shell game. Deposited funds may as well have been deposited directly into Binance, which is against the public perception they created.

rich_sasha 4y ago
My point is, it depends what "separate" means. It's not uncommon for regulated exchanges to have multiple shell exchanges, just as this article alludes Binance does, where orders are just routed somewhere else. If that's the case then it's unavoidable that client money moves. What is unclear to me is what independence is promised. Did they promise a fully segregated business with no links? If TFA is right then this is violated. But maybe they just promised a US entity for dealing with international Binance. If so, the only benefits you reap is there is a US business you can sue and some kind of financial supervision - quite light by the sound of it. And not, by itself, unheard of in regulated finance. Just saying "look money flowing to and fro" contradicts some but not all sane definitions of "independent".
- sjsdaiuasgdia 4y ago
  >In public, Zhao said the new U.S. exchange – called Binance.US – was a “fully independent entity.” While definitions can have nuance, the "fully" prefix is worthy of consideration here. That doesn't seem to lend itself to being an accurate description of a shell exchange. If you're concerned the "fully" part didn't come from CZ: >For instance, Binance.com is not available to US users, while there is a brand partnership with Binance.US, which is a fully independent entity that is a compliant and regulated exchange in the US, to provide US users with a safe, secure, and compliant trading platform. [1] This is pretty clearly saying one thing then doing another. [1]: https://www.binance.com/en/blog/from-cz/a-letter-from-our-ceo-reflecting-on-progress-and-the-road-ahead-421499824684902301 https://www.binance.com/en/blog/from-cz/a-letter-from-our-ce...
  - rich_sasha 4y ago
    Thanks. I'm not saying Binance did nothing wrong, only the article does not elaborate what promise of independence is made. These statements, while certainly very strongly hinting at total separation, are vague enough that they could mean anything. Clearly, the powerhouse of transparency that is Binance could just cut all such speculation by providing a proper audit. We're all arguing around the margins of a slightly dog-chewed napkin containing scribbles pinky promising Binance is good for the money...

rich_sasha 4y ago

My point is, it depends what "separate" means. It's not uncommon for regulated exchanges to have multiple shell exchanges, just as this article alludes Binance does, where orders are just routed somewhere else. If that's the case then it's unavoidable that client money moves. What is unclear to me is what independence is promised. Did they promise a fully segregated business with no links? If TFA is right then this is violated. But maybe they just promised a US entity for dealing with international Binance. If so, the only benefits you reap is there is a US business you can sue and some kind of financial supervision - quite light by the sound of it. And not, by itself, unheard of in regulated finance. Just saying "look money flowing to and fro" contradicts some but not all sane definitions of "independent".

sjsdaiuasgdia 4y ago
>In public, Zhao said the new U.S. exchange – called Binance.US – was a “fully independent entity.” While definitions can have nuance, the "fully" prefix is worthy of consideration here. That doesn't seem to lend itself to being an accurate description of a shell exchange. If you're concerned the "fully" part didn't come from CZ: >For instance, Binance.com is not available to US users, while there is a brand partnership with Binance.US, which is a fully independent entity that is a compliant and regulated exchange in the US, to provide US users with a safe, secure, and compliant trading platform. [1] This is pretty clearly saying one thing then doing another. [1]: https://www.binance.com/en/blog/from-cz/a-letter-from-our-ceo-reflecting-on-progress-and-the-road-ahead-421499824684902301 https://www.binance.com/en/blog/from-cz/a-letter-from-our-ce...
- rich_sasha 4y ago
  Thanks. I'm not saying Binance did nothing wrong, only the article does not elaborate what promise of independence is made. These statements, while certainly very strongly hinting at total separation, are vague enough that they could mean anything. Clearly, the powerhouse of transparency that is Binance could just cut all such speculation by providing a proper audit. We're all arguing around the margins of a slightly dog-chewed napkin containing scribbles pinky promising Binance is good for the money...